The substance of your post deserves a far longer response than I should give here. My brand of liberalism has always been tempered by a respect for human agency. That implies a deep respect for individual potential and a deep suspicion of group identity. The State's role should be creating the conditions where individuals may thrive, cre…
The substance of your post deserves a far longer response than I should give here. My brand of liberalism has always been tempered by a respect for human agency. That implies a deep respect for individual potential and a deep suspicion of group identity. The State's role should be creating the conditions where individuals may thrive, creating accountability for the negative externalities of unbridled capitalism, and attempting to level the playing field by removing impediments to succeed for those who take the initiative to better themselves. While libertarianism is the default for me, life experience has taught me that there is still a robust role for state intervention, but it must be justified—e.g., I spent much of my legal career as a lawyer for environmental nonprofits.
In many ways, my brand of “classical liberalism” is what might now be called “conservative” in contrast to MAGA radicalism. Our society and polity will never be better than the sum of individual effort, so that the role of the state is to create conditions where such individual and group effort is incentivized and rewarded at all levels. The State should also foster "radical tolerance," where Christian cis-het people can live side by side with atheist trans pansexuals because they mutually agree on a regime which enables each to thrive within their respective private spheres.
To your point, a corollary of this view is that when a critical mass of individuals within a polity is unwilling or unable to make productive effort, or to tolerate difference, the whole edifice will eventually fail. Unwilling due to a culture that glorifies victimhood independent of effort. Unable because declining expectations and misallocated resources deny individuals the tools they need to make their effort worthwhile.
The substance of your post deserves a far longer response than I should give here. My brand of liberalism has always been tempered by a respect for human agency. That implies a deep respect for individual potential and a deep suspicion of group identity. The State's role should be creating the conditions where individuals may thrive, creating accountability for the negative externalities of unbridled capitalism, and attempting to level the playing field by removing impediments to succeed for those who take the initiative to better themselves. While libertarianism is the default for me, life experience has taught me that there is still a robust role for state intervention, but it must be justified—e.g., I spent much of my legal career as a lawyer for environmental nonprofits.
In many ways, my brand of “classical liberalism” is what might now be called “conservative” in contrast to MAGA radicalism. Our society and polity will never be better than the sum of individual effort, so that the role of the state is to create conditions where such individual and group effort is incentivized and rewarded at all levels. The State should also foster "radical tolerance," where Christian cis-het people can live side by side with atheist trans pansexuals because they mutually agree on a regime which enables each to thrive within their respective private spheres.
To your point, a corollary of this view is that when a critical mass of individuals within a polity is unwilling or unable to make productive effort, or to tolerate difference, the whole edifice will eventually fail. Unwilling due to a culture that glorifies victimhood independent of effort. Unable because declining expectations and misallocated resources deny individuals the tools they need to make their effort worthwhile.
Really well said.